Whisenand

People v. Whisenand

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 828·37 Cal. App. 4th 1383·44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 501·44 Cal. Rptr. 501·95 Daily Journal DAR 11535
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 3, 1995E013454California4,176 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hollenhorst, J.

Having pled guilty to one count of embezzlement (Pen. Code, § 503), defendant appeals to challenge a victim restitution order made after a lengthy restitution hearing. Specifically, she contends that the trial court erred (1) in awarding interest on the actual losses to the victim; (2) expressly finding that she had the ability to pay for the services of court-appointed counsel; (3) impliedly finding that she had the ability to pay the restitution award; and (4) in ordering her to pay costs of court-appointed counsel, costs of the probation report, and costs of probation supervision.

Facts and Procedural History

Defendant was an employee of a hardware store in Murrieta. The store also had an accompanying gas station business. After the owner noticed irregularities, he called the sheriff’s department. Defendant admitted to a deputy that she had taken $500 from the cash register between March and May 1992. She also admitted inflating her working hours on her time sheets.

To avoid prosecution, defendant entered into an agreement with the store owner in which she agreed to repay $2,500 which she admitted taking from the hardware store. At that time, she denied taking any…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.